Child Online Protection Act Appeal Rejected

TarrVetus writes "The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that the Child Online Protection Act will not be revived, upholding a 2007 decision that the unimplemented 1998 law is unconstitutional. The law, which made it a crime for websites to allow children access to 'harmful' material, was declared a violation of the First Amendment because of existing elective filtering technologies and parental controls that are less restrictive to free speech than the 'ineffective' and 'overly broad' ban."

Comments

The System

[Anonymous Coward]

It works

Re:The System

[SBacks]

To be clear, this has nothing to do with child porn. This is a law intended to prevent children from accessing porn.

Re:The System

[Anonymous Coward]

> "If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Whoa whoa whoa, since when has Chris Hansen become is a pro-pedo lawyer?

Re:The System

[philspear]

I'd be more apt to believe that if the judge had struck it down on the principle that parents need to protect their kids rather than the world needs to make itself kid-friendly in all ways. An extended investigation to it and then turning it down because it would be poorly implemented and ineffective on top of all that is a win I guess, but it's not the resounding "this is flawed and stupid on a fundamental level, cannot be made to work, and shall never come to pass in any form" I would have hoped for. As it is, the "other side" will simply go back to work, maybe making exceptions, but will bring it back in a few years.

Re:The System

[repvik]

This has nothing to do with CP...

Re:The System

[philspear]

Edit: it is nice of course that the judge acknowledged it was a stupid idea to "chip away at the first amendment." And I realize of course the type of ban I am wanting, the judge saying nothing of the type will ever be passed in any form, is not within the judge's powers.

Basically I'm whining about it not being perfect, which is itself a fundamentally flawed idea that will never come to pass.

Re:The System

[Ethanol-fueled]

A law intended to prevent children from masturbating to child porn, that is.

Re:The System

[Jawn98685]

To be clear, this has nothing to do with child porn. This is a law intended to prevent children from accessing porn.

...or anything else that some authority deems "harmful", like pictures of naked female breasts. No shit, those controversial MySpace photos would have landed those pornographer/nursing mothers in the pokey under COPA. Can we please stop wasting the courts' time now and stop the political pandering, by our elected representatives, to a noisy few, uptight, religious nut-jobs?

Re:The System

[nsayer]

Whoosh.

For those who also do not feel the gust of air from the joke flying over your head, let me google it for you.

Re:The System

[kohaku]

that some authority deems "harmful", like pictures of naked female breasts.

I hope you're joking. Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing, and I think we all know the reason. Every single one of our children sees naked female breasts from the very day they're born. This has to stop, and it has to stop now: the children are our future, and if we don't protect them from the naked horrors of pornography, who will?

Re:The System

[Hatta]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re:The System

[Joe Snipe]

To be clear, this has nothing to do with child porn. This is a law intended to distract the public from real issues and generate new revenue streams for politicians and their allies

there, fixed that for you.

Re:The System

[hort_wort]

I'm glad you pointed this out -- I've been starting to wonder about the /. crowd after the debates over the last few weeks.

"Child porn is wrong, think of the children!!" But shouldn't it be "Child porn is wrong, DON'T think of the children!!"? Why are there so many articles about it?

Re:The System

[samriel]

That's a good point. I tip my porno to you, good sir.

Re:The System

[Anonymous Coward]

I even saw me a vagingle when I wuz born!

Re:The System

[PitaBred]

In relation to your post: http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2009/01/9-reasons-to-keep-your-kids-away-from.html

Re:The System

[Anonymous Coward]

that some authority deems "harmful", like pictures of naked female breasts.

I hope you're joking. Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing, and I think we all know the reason. Every single one of our children sees naked female breasts from the very day they're born. This has to stop, and it has to stop now: the children are our future, and if we don't protect them from the naked horrors of pornography, who will?

do you really understand how Porn affects us? Our minds? Do you think that porn is simply "Naked Breasts?"

Re:The System

[Anonymous Coward]

Vagingle? WTF? Did your mom have a clit piercing with bells attached? I figured they make you remove those before giving birth.

Re:The System

[RulerOf]

do you really understand how Porn affects us?

My understanding is that it makes you horny.

Re:The System

[supernova_hq]

My clock is LCD you insensitive clod!

Re:The System

[blair1q]

Okay. Protect them. One at a time. Go to their houses, and when they click on links that bring up images of breasts, cover their eyes with your hand. This is a means of child protection that has been conducted since prehistoric times. With that sort of precedent in natural law, no court could stop you.

Re:The System

[Faylone]

There's a euphemism I haven't seen before!

Re:The System

[Faylone]

Unless it's a 24-hour clock, where it's correct once a day, unless it's not broken in such a way that it could complete a rotation faster than 24 hours, in which case, every so often, there would be a day where it was wrong the entire time

Re:The System

[dontmakemethink]

Haven't you seen the nipple protectors for breast feeding? They attach to the nipple so that milk can flow, but the aperature is shaped like a beer bottle top, and there is a visual barrier in the form of a Marlboro ad. No need to worry about corrupting the tot's tender psyche with pornography!

Re:The System

[Anonymous Coward]

]Whoa whoa whoa, since when has Chris Hansen become is a pro-pedo lawyer?

Without pedos, Chris has no TV show! Duh!

Re:The System

[HTH NE1]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Shadows still progress across the face of a broken sundial.

Re:The System

[HTH NE1]

Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing

I noticed. Making your way in the world today takes everything you got.

Re:The System

[vux984]

Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot.
Wouldn't you like to get away?

Re:The System

[HTH NE1]

All those nights when you got no lights the check was in the mail
And your little angel hung the cat up by its tail
And your third fiancée didn't show
Sometimes you wanna go...

Re:The System

[Meski]

Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing

I noticed. Making your way in the world today takes everything you got.

I read that as "Milking your way in the world today ..."

Sick puppy am I.

Re:The System

[compro01]

Of course it does. What other kind of pornography would children want to look at?

What happens when you don't toe the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news all Philadelphia residents have been put on the Sex Offender list.

Re:What happens when you don't toe the line.

[IndustrialComplex]

In other news all Philadelphia residents have been put on the Sex Offender list.

In other news, Philadelphians began referring to themselves as, Spartacus.

Re:What happens when you don't toe the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct cliche is TOW the line. TOW. -1 FAIL.

Re:What happens when you don't toe the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct cliche is TOW the line. TOW. -1 FAIL.

You are savagely retarded.

11 years later and still squirming/

[guruevi]

This law is 11 years old and it's still squirming through the courts. For all those that say that free speech is protected by the constitution and that certain branches will do away with unconstitutional laws: here is an example of how long you can potentially have laws affecting you while you're fighting it in court.

Of course this law is unimplemented but several other laws like DMCA and Patriot Act ARE implemented and unconstitutional. It takes longer than a 2 term presidency to do away with a dead law, how long do you think it would take to repeal a law that has been in use?

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[betterunixthanunix]

Yes, these things take a while to sort themselves out. There is simply no other way to protect the rights of the citizens while maintaining a meaningful and functional government. Subtle violations of your rights take longer, because there is more disagreement over whether or not your rights were violated at all -- you might think that the DMCA is a violation of your rights, but there are plenty of people out there who feel that it is not and that in fact, the DMCA protects the rights of the citizens (copyrights precede free speech in the constitution), including you.

Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[TubeSteak]

This law is 11 years old and it's still squirming through the courts.

AFAIK, the right to a speedy trial does not apply in civil actions.

It would be nice if it did though.
At least for Constitutional claims.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[CannonballHead]

Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?

If people (which they seem to do quite often) think that what they think is the ultimate right/correct way to think, then disagreements are just stupid, and thus the problems should be easily solved (e.g.,"sudden outbreak of common sense" as though it's obvious to everyone what the correct answer to the problem is).

It's a good thing the courts don't decide things based on a slashdot-esque tagging system, hehe. :) Not to say courts are perfect, but.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Anonymous Coward]

the DMCA protects the rights of the citizens (copyrights precede free speech in the constitution)

Um, what? Free speech is in the First Amendment, which amends the constitution, thereby modifying or restricting anything in it (except as modified by later amendments). Now what this means as far as copyrights is up for the courts to decide.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in - the system is imperfect. Details at 11.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

Tell someone who has spent eleven years in jail, due to a law that was eventually declared unconstitutional, that they are being "impatient".

For example, those persons who were jailed by the D.C. Anti-gun Ownershipship Law which was eventually declared unconstitutional. They lost a big chunk of their lives to imprisonment, for a law that should have never existed.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Obfuscant]

Tell someone who has spent eleven years in jail,

Which part of "unimplemented" is confusing?

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Hatta]

This is why there should be only one body of law. Civil cases are being used as an end run around our constitutional rights. If I am being victimized by the government, I don't care if they're bringing civil or criminal action against me. I deserve all my rights, no matter what venue I'm in.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Dun Malg]

(copyrights precede free speech in the constitution)

Physically preceding in the text doesn't determine precedence in law, Einstein.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Anonymous Coward]

There is simply no other way to protect the rights of the citizens while maintaining a meaningful and functional government.

Sure there is. Require every law to explicitly cite the part of the constitution that permits the government to do that. While we're hacking at the constitution, you could even have the supreme court review immediately after the President signs it, much like their "porn day" that they used to do to decide whether movies were obscene or not after the fact until congress changed the law to allow individual courts to make the decision after the fact. Or make it so that anyone voting yes for a law found to be unconstitutional is immediately put on impeachment trial by the remainder of congress (just think how much power Ron Paul would wield!) for violating the supreme law of the land.

As for the DMCA, half the the law is specifically about "access control" which has nothing to do with copyright. Throughout time, no artist has ever had the right to demand that people gaze upon their jesus christ covered in piss and see only the glory of his genius. Well, they could, but they had absolutely no recourse until the DMCA came along and decided that copyright holders should have the right to decide how their customers see their work.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Talderas]

Don't worry, they'll just keep using the power of the Federal government to regulate interstate trade as their reasoning for it. That is what started all the expansion of government in the first place. Though of course, I'm curious as to how any welfare systems regulate interstate trade, as well as where in the constitution the federal government has the authority to establish them.

This leads me into a side tangent. I can't stand how people think that the federal government should implement the will of the majority upon the minority. Your only choices are to suck it up and hope that when the minority get power, they can revert the former majority's will, or move to another country. Likewise, I don't understand people's distaste for the state to allow the majority to put it's will over the minority. That's the beauty of being a union of "autonomous" states. They're supposed to be given so much more power than the Federal government, and thanks to the open borders with states, if the majority are doing what you don't like, and you can't change it, just move to another state. You don't have quite that flexibility when it's done at the Federal level.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[rolfwind]

In the 1800s, Congress spent some time arguing the Constitutionality of proposed laws. The Supreme Court wasn't supposed to be the only barrier judging Constitutionality. You also had vetos from the executive branch being more than just political tools - in the hands of Constructionist such as Grover Cleveland. Now, almost no one in Congress cares - our government is viewed, not as limited, but unlimited and without bounds (if worded properly).

It's not that people were better back then, but a change in mentality towards government in general.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Hatta]

There is simply no other way to protect the rights of the citizens while maintaining a meaningful and functional government.

Do you have evidence of this assertion? How many other ways have you tried?

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[AmberBlackCat]

The problem isn't just how long it takes to get removed. The problem is it was able to get there in the first place, even though so many people could easily see what it does to us. That's the deficiency.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Actually, I do RTFA]

here is an example of how long you can potentially have laws affecting you while you're fighting it in court.

You mean not at all? An injunction was issued before this law went into force. For 11 years, people have been fighting to have the law enforcable, with the default being that it was not until the court cases were settled.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

What part of, "Can you read the WHOLE posting before replying?" do you not comprehend? QUOTE: "Tell someone who has spent eleven years in jail..... For example, those persons who were jailed by the D.C Anti-gun Onership Law."

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

I swear I read that paragraph on the Libertarian Party website.

(shrug).

Although I cannot lay my hand upon any sentence that says, "Congress shall have power to extract money from the people and give it to other people", most people who support the welfare state point to the sentence about common welfare, and they think that ends the argument. Except as James Madison pointed out, if that were a true power of Congress, then there'd be no need to enumerate the rest of the powers, because "provide for common welfare" would give Congress power over everything, and that was not his intent when he crafted the document.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[pclminion]

For example, those persons who were jailed by the D.C. Anti-gun Ownershipship Law which was eventually declared unconstitutional. They lost a big chunk of their lives to imprisonment, for a law that should have never existed.

Those people had a choice. They could comply with the law until it was overturned. Or they could choose civil disobedience, which necessarily comes along with jail time. There is no realistic third choice where you get to break the law and not be punished.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[HTH NE1]

At least they have some "time served" banked against any future offenses. Though one should never plan to make a withdrawal from that bank.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[HTH NE1]

As for the DMCA, half the the law is specifically about "access control" which has nothing to do with copyright. Throughout time, no artist has ever had the right to demand that people gaze upon their [work] and see only the glory of his genius. Well, they could, but they had absolutely no recourse until the DMCA came along and decided that copyright holders should have the right to decide how their customers see their work.

I can think of at least one: stage performers--particularly magicians and illusionists--may sue for trespass anyone who attempts to view the act from behind the stage without permission. Perhaps even for attempting to "steal" trade secrets. Though they could charge you with attempted assault on the performers depending on the perceived nature of the infraction.

The electronic access controls could be akin to the staging a venue for a performance, especially one with security guards.

I'm only being a Devil's Advocate. I don't necessarily agree with this analogy.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?

Replace "instantly" with "in one's lifetime" and you'll see the issue some people have with the system.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[dwarfking]

Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?

Maybe because we live in the 30 second sound bite/1-hour "solve everything drama" media driven world created by the folks that are protected by many of the bought and paid for laws that are chipping away at our freedoms.

What this does is get people to expect instant gratification, then when they don't get it they just move on to something else. A population that isn't paying attention to what their leadership is doing is easily mis-lead.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Anonymous Coward]

"This leads me into a side tangent. I can't stand how people think that the federal government should implement the will of the majority upon the minority."

  Really, you do not think that it is MINORITY of people who hold ALL THE POWER and ENFORCE IT ON the MAJORITY???

  Answer the following questions:
  To whom Supreme Court of United States Answers to? How many people decide what is the law? ...only 5!

  So 5 people control all the law and power.

  Who has 90 % of the money in the world?
  Who has all the power in the world?

  It is NEVER EVER THE MAJORITY.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Dhalka226]

(copyrights precede free speech in the constitution)

It's actually interesting that you bring that up, though in exactly the opposite way that you supposed it was. Your statement makes it sound like coming before it in the text means it was more important, or thought of first. I don't agree that the order, in general, has any specific meaning; I believe you have to take the text as a whole. However, for the sake of argument, let's say it was absolutely true.

Free speech--also known as the first amendment--didn't simply "come after" copyright. It was an amendment to the Constitution. It went through the process that same constitution demanded in order to change anything you please. In that sense the order WAS important; one of the things amendments can do is alter the meanings of the text that had come before (see: slaves as 3/5ths of a man). If we want to discuss whether or not the order matters in determining which takes precedent over the other, it's actually no argument at all: The amendment wins. Whether or not the amendment was intended to (or does) have any effect on that particular passage is a tougher question, but if we've decided, as point of law or just for debate, that the first amendment was meant to affect the passage about copyright, free speech clearly wins.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Dhalka226]

Politics and law are too much about nuance that alters the meaning of things we thought we knew for my taste. For example, using your set of choices, my response would be that the Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens are under no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. The reality is that laws are presupposed to be constitutional until struck down, which makes the statement just a breath away from meaningless in the real world. ("Oopsie! Locked you up for a decade even though you didn't do anything wrong. Sorry, we'll take that off your record!" Yeah, thanks.)

It seems to me that cases like the GP describe are still massive failures of the system. These people weren't immediate dangers to society, at least not based merely on their possessing a gun in violation of that law. The need to jail these people was in no way pressing. Since it's fairly obvious to just about anybody that any gun control measure is going to have constitutional challenges, the trial judge or the immediate appellate judge should have stayed the sentences until the appellate court, at the very least, had a chance to weigh in on the constitutional issues. Personally I would argue that it should have stayed them until the Supreme Court either weighed in or refused to weigh in.

Maybe these people still end up erroneously serving some jail time until another such case falls in front of a different set of judges -- but when we're talking about unlawfully imprisoning people, I think any time we can reduce from faulty sentences is a step in the right direction. I think if you asked the people who served these sentences, they would have been awfully happy to have had an extra year or two of their lives back while appeals worked their way through the courts.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[jythie]

*nods* I think often people forget the human element and 'examples' of such laws. While in the abstract we want a nice slow process to make sure things are done right, but it often costs some little people a lot in the process.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[guruevi]

No it doesn't and it's people like you that get us in this mess too. Free speech cannot be copyrighted since free speech is (or should be) a basic human right. Copyright is (or should be) a government enforced monopoly on the arts (whether they be music, poetry, the way your device looks or paintings).

You can't copyright phrases like "I have a dream" or "vive la republique" nor can you copyright the way to organize a rally. You can try and these days you'll probably get away with it too, but it's not lawful.

Free speech is one of those sacred things that should carry a death sentence for treason for whoever tries to (repeatedly) do away with.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[compro01]

Require every law to explicitly cite the part of the constitution that permits the government to do that.

Unless I'm mistaken, they already have to do that.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[Aaron5367]

Yes, these things take a while to sort themselves out. There is simply no other way to protect the rights of the citizens while maintaining a meaningful and functional government. Subtle violations of your rights take longer, because there is more disagreement over whether or not your rights were violated at all -- you might think that the DMCA is a violation of your rights, but there are plenty of people out there who feel that it is not and that in fact, the DMCA protects the rights of the citizens (copyrights precede free speech in the constitution), including you. Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?

Woah, what America do you live in?

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

>>>Those people had a choice. They could comply with the law until it was overturned.

But a law that violates the U.S. Constitution is NOT a law. The Supreme Court made that determination as far back as circa 1810. We the People are not obligated to obey laws that are not laws. On the contrary, our employees in the government are required by oath to follow Constitutional rules - they are the ones who made a poor choice by disobeying their oath.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

In the EU there's a council of ministers that meets regularly. Perhaps a similar "council of governors" should exist to review U.S. Congressional law, as it passes, to verify if the law is constitutional or not. After all the States are part of the contract - surely they have a right to review and accept, or reject, all acts passed by the U.S.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

P.S.

>>>"Oopsie! Locked you up for a decade even though you didn't do anything wrong. Sorry, we'll take that off your record!" Yeah, thanks.

If I spent 10 years in jail for a crime I did not commit, or a non-law that was declared unconstitutional, I would expect some kind of compensation. Like the 1 million dollars I lost in wages; even half that amount would be acceptable. But no compensation??? Some politician or DA would pay the ultimate price for their unconstitutional act. Yeah sure I'd go back to jail but at least I'd have the satisfaction of knowing it was deserved jailtime, not just wasted years, and the government tyrant would not be able to unjustly jail a citizen again.

Re:11 years later and still squirming/

[theaveng]

>>>At least they have some "time served" banked against any future offenses.

Is that true? If I'm imprisoned by mistake for ten years, any future sentences will automatically be reduced by 10??? Hmmm.

What about small animals

[Anonymous Coward]

I am zealous in my defense of small animals and I think the law and the International Community should join me in stopping the evil degradation of rodents, mice, and squirrels and some birds. Only God in his Power can crapulate the interest between cute anumals with the frowning smell? of CHEESER!!!!! Jesus!!!! Fuck!

Re:What about small animals

[Anonymous Coward]

Keith Moon? Is that you?

No more intro pages for porn sites?

[panoptical2]

Most porn sites nowadays have intro pages that ask the user to confirm if he/she is over 18. Would eliminating this law mean that those sites are no longer required to have these intro pages?

(Also, do not confuse this law with COPPA, which is the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, which is enforced [and is constitutional] to prevent children under 13 from posting their personal information online.)

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[morgan_greywolf]

Most porn sites nowadays have intro pages that ask the user to confirm if he/she is over 18. Would eliminating this law mean that those sites are no longer required to have these intro pages?

They never were required to have them, at least not by any federal statute. Porn sites did this of their own (or their lawyers') volition.

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

But wasn't the possibility of COPA passing one of the main reasons that they started doing this (to protect against future liability). As COPA has gotten struck down (again and again), I've noticed most sites going from "Enter your Date of Birth" to "Are you over 18?"

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[MBGMorden]

At least the majority of them got smart about it though and made it a "yes" or "no" type page. For a long time there a bunch of them had it setup so that you had to put in your exact birth date using 3 drop down lists, so that it could then calculate if you were older than 18.

I guess they thought that 12 year olds could do the math behind that . . .

Either way, even as a completely legal adult, it was incredibly aggravating. Normally I just threw in whatever random responses I knew would put it over 18 and then moved forward.

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pervert

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[Kandenshi]

It's truly astonishing how many people viewing porn were born on January 1st, with the year being whatever a few presses of the "page down" button got you.
Asking people to put in their birth date for viewing porn is not likely to really catch anyone. If it did, they could always just hit back in their browser and plug in a new date.

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[LordKronos]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/i_am_under_18_button

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[dangitman]

Normally I just threw in whatever random responses I knew would put it over 18 and then moved forward.

... and then backward, and then forward again...

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[mog007]

Those things also don't have error checkings. Once I put in a birthday of February 30th, and it made the script happy.

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[Kjella]

They never were required to have them, at least not by any federal statute. Porn sites did this of their own (or their lawyers') volition.

Huge print: We need your credit card info for AVS, enjoy your FREE trial.
Small print: 30$/month after trial, automatically renewed unless you unsubscribe.

It's the simplest and easiest way to generate income.

Re:The (judicial) System

[Anonymous Coward]

More precisely, the court system works. As much as people complain about American democracy, the part that most people agree on is that the court system works. But ironically, the judicial system is arguably the least democratic part of our government. In cases like this, it is just one judge or a handful of judges making the decision.

The law in question was legislative, and most people think the legislative system is broken. It may be time for open source to provide the solution.

Adult entertainment?

[spiffydudex]

I would rather keep kids away from online porn. It's called adult entertainment for a reason, its for adults.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[pixelpusher220]

if only the *parents* out there shared a similar view...

Now, most parents do indeed want to keep kids away from it, yet they willingly turn over the keys (computer) and let kids drive the Indy 500 (internet). They just can't be bothered to actually administer and moderate what their kids are doing.

Yes yes people are busy, but if you're that busy, why did you have kids in the first place? I don't want my access to whatever material I see as reasonable restricted simply because someone else refuses to take their own responsibility.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Volante3192]

The trick lies in blocking adult entertainment from children while making sure it's delivery is unhindered to the adults who are legally allowed to view it.

Furthermore, you have to be sure to seperate adult entertainment from sites talking about, say, breast cancer, that kids may need for research projects in high school.

So, while I'd wager many share your view, many of us here have to come to the realization that a comprehensive solution is too unwieldly to even imagine.

This is where parental supervision comes into play, and often where the kick falls short.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[betterunixthanunix]

Two things: first, this is a parental issue, not a government issue. Parents should be instructing their children to close any browser window that has pornography in it; second, and this is somewhat based on the first, is that teenagers going through puberty are not going to be harmed by viewing pornography (it is debatable whether or not prepubescent children would be). It is a matter of maturity, and again, only the parents can really judge whether or not their kid is mature enough to view "mature content." If a 15 year old is looking at pornography that they downloaded over the Internet, what is the problem? This material is only of interest to sexually mature people, and teenagers generally fall into that category.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[corsec67]

The trick lies in blocking adult entertainment from children...

Why?

If it is covered by free speech, I don't see how you can say "you must be *this* old to use free speech". Is porn harmful to people under 18? Even if they are legally allowed to have sex?

Why not violent material?

This is where parental supervision comes into play, and often where the kick falls short.

Absolutely, that is where this kind of oversight belongs.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[SCHecklerX]

Then maybe those "adults" with children should raise and monitor them themselves. Your kid is not my problem, put your own damned net filters on, or cut the cable, but leave MY Internet alone.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[betterunixthanunix]

"Now, most parents do indeed want to keep kids away from it, yet they willingly turn over the keys (computer) and let kids drive the Indy 500 (internet). They just can't be bothered to actually administer and moderate what their kids are doing."

How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[pixelpusher220]

And yours didn't question you reading Playboy at 9 years old?

My parents restricted the hours I watched TV and kept tabs on what I watched. They took an interest in what I did and with whom I did it. Reading was things that they provided or I asked for (and they approved before I got).

Is that really so hard to comprehend? It's called childhood, your parents are responsible for you (and liable to a pretty wide degree).

Indeed many things can happen outside of a parents view, but the stuff that's inside their OWN HOUSE, they have to own up to responsibility for.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[BlueParrot]

only the parents can really judge whether or not their kid is mature enough to view "mature content."

Are you joking? Parents are HORRIBLE at judging when their kids are mature. If it was down to parents a whole lot of kids should not even know sex exists until they are 30. Now start to consider what happens to gay children born in a religious families, parents that refuse to have their kid vaccinated... etc... Yes, governments are bad at this, but there's A LOT of crap parents around as well (have a guess who it was that pressured government into creating all these laws in the first place ).

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Weaselmancer]

I would rather you did it as well. I would rather we not leave it up to the government.

It's your job to be a parent to your children, not the government's.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal for people under the age of 18 to have sex in California, even if their partner is underaged as well.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[powerlord]

How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.

I'd imagine Its sort of like monitoring what they watch.

- Set them up on a restricted account (on whatever OS you use), so that they CAN'T change things/install things without your approval. That might mean that you need a different
computer for YOUR use, vs. the "whole families use".
- Add a password, don't tell them what it is. If they want to use the computer, then an "adult" needs to be monitoring their usage. Yes, you might sometimes just unlock it and let them play on site X, but if they want to get on-line, you have to know they are there. Check in from time to time at random and see how its coming. Maybe spend some time playing their games with them, or just watching.
- Install "parental control" software (yes, its not 100% effective, but its at least a step up).

Talk to your children and let them know about the "dangers" to both themselves and their computer of going to random web sites, "accepting digital candy/files from strangers", etc.

Realize that at the point they can bypass all of your "controls" to look at pornography, they are doing the equivalent of you sneaking into your fathers drawer of Playboys (albeit quite a bit more graphic)

Alternatively, perhaps one idea is to make a drawer of playboys something that they can "sneak into" so they have less initial dive to get at the hard-core stuff?

At a certain point they will be old enough that it just won't matter, part of that is their age, and part of that is how you raise them (and who their school friends are).

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Incubusion]

Even ignoring that that's part of what you accept as your role when you have a child, there are a hundred internet censorship programs out there that work pretty effectively. It's not that difficult to install them, hell to even just install them for one user. And setting up different user profiles on a computer, with passwords, is one of the easiest things to do. When it comes to TV, just tell them when their bed time is or when they can't watch TV. Sure, they might anyways, though thousands of kids watch 'inappropriate TV' and come out just fine. But, more importantly than any of that, the parents need to teach their kids the concept of a moral compass. More important than blocking what they see is teaching them how to UNDERSTAND what they see, teaching them right from wrong. If a kid knows right from wrong, it's safe to assume he'll turn out fine even if he runs across hundreds of horrible sites advocating nasty things like racism or religious extremism. Encourage open discourse. Finally, know your own damn kid. Know if he's impressionable and needs some extra help understanding things or just blocking things that would be far beyond him just yet, or know when he's responsible enough to handle himself and let him deal with more mature things. Many parents have done it for years, decades, perhaps even centuries. Why do we have such difficulty with it?

Re:Adult entertainment?

[gsgriffin]

Please, do your research before making an assumption about the effects of porn on anyone (kids or adults) and then stating it as a fact for everyone to read.

There are effects and you can find them in lots of research on the net if you took the time to look. Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that are addicted to porn. You might be surprised what you find among a lot of social issues we deal with in America and its relationship to porn.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Tubal-Cain]

Logs on the default gateway. Maybe have a whitelist of sites.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[MightyMartian]

There's an old adage in science and statistics which seems to fit with your claim. Correlation does not imply causation. The only way that one could determine whether porn makes rapists more likely would be to provide a meaningful, methodologically sound definition of "pornography addiction" and statistics on the number of people overall that could be classified in such a way. Otherwise, you might as well say "Milk creates rapists, because most rapists drink milk".

Re:Adult entertainment?

[theaveng]

I got my first modem in 1987, and it wasn't too long after that when I downloaded some naked photos. My mom probably would have freaked-out but I don't see how I was harmed in any way.

I don't really see why kids need to be filtered. We tell them about the disgusting habit of taking a ____, or how to properly clean their ____, so surely we can share with them reproduction. We need to teach them eventually, and now is as good a time as any.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[story645]

only the parents can really judge whether or not their kid is mature enough to view "mature content."

Parents are HORRIBLE at judging when their kids are mature.

Bad parents, which is the type you're ranting about. The good ones are pretty good judges of their kid's emotional health and tend to be on base with what their kid(s) should be exposed to (and what they are). There's also a major difference between not wanting a kid to do something and pretending it doesn't exist, and good parents tend to be the type that knows the line: they may believe in abstinence, but they'll make sure their kid has the knowledge he or she needs to navigate his or her environment. I know plenty of religious families, and the kids learn about sex when they're ready for it (or even before they really understand it-which is incredibly funny but also hits home that a kid maybe old enough to have sex but not ready for it).

Re:Adult entertainment?

[sjames]

If it is covered by free speech, I don't see how you can say "you must be *this* old to use free speech". Is porn harmful to people under 18? Even if they are legally allowed to have sex?

Many parents believe it to be. That's why it's a matter for parental control. So long as it remains strictly a matter for parents to decide, it doesn't really matter if it turns out not to be harmful. Certainly, for younger kids it opens a lot of questions they are not prepared to understand the answers to.

Why not violent material?

That's a very good question! I don't know the answer.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Shikaku]

Pendant point, but sex is instinctual. If a girl and a boy were left on an island and they learned to survive but were not taught anything about sex they will eventually "figure out" how to have sex so to speak if they were attracted to each other; clumsily I might add.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[theaveng]

The problem with your suggestion is that it requires parents to WORK at filtering their child's content, and most parents have been trained by the government school system that working is not necessary. You can be lazy, just "skirt" the minimum requirements, and still get a diploma.

They continue that habit as 20-something parents.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Jeff Hornby]

How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.

You could try raising them properly, instilling proper values, ensuring there are open lines of communication; you know, try parenting. As for specifically how to stop them from surfing porn on the internet, take the computer out of their room and put it in the living room (or whatever room you habitually hang out in). And make sure the screen is facing out into the room. That way if the little bugger is surfing porn, you can enjoy it too ;)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[MBGMorden]

There are effects and you can find them in lots of research on the net if you took the time to look. Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that are addicted to porn.

That a convicted rapist is addicted to porn says nothing as to whether or not the porn caused that person to become a rapist.

There are 3 possibilities here:

a) Porn makes one more likely to become a rapist.
b) Being a rapist makes one more likely to watch porn.
c) The two have no real correlation and it's coincidence.

You're automatically assuming that your statistic implies option A, but I'd personally be far quicker to assume option B, and they're not the same thing.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[corsec67]

Certainly, for younger kids it opens a lot of questions they are not prepared to understand the answers to.

Are you sure they aren't prepared to understand that?

Is exposing kids to things they "are not prepared to understand the answers to" harmful? We are going to have to censor calculus websites now?

This is one of those things where repeating it often enough makes it true. Show me a study that shows that exposing kids to nudity or porn is harmful.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[427_ci_505]

^Logs on the router is typically a good way to go, if you don't tell them what the router password is. Maybe Wireshark and a hub would work? You could leave their computer clean, but still snoop on them...

Or you could state some expectations and show a bit of trust in the relationship.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[theaveng]

>>>seperate adult entertainment from sites talking about, say, breast cancer, that kids may need for research projects in high school.

If they are that old, there's no reason to censor it. They are their peers are already discussing sex - possibly even practicing it (oral is popular these days). Remove the filters so these young adults can gain access to accurate information ("yes you CAN get pregnant the first time"), instead of being fed bunk through the in-school rumor mill.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Tassach]

Porn "addiction" (like gambling "addiction") isn't an addiction. It's a COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR.

A real addictive substance causes actual measurable, physiological changes in the body - chemical dependency - and the addict suffers from withdrawal symptoms.

Compulsive behavior, on the other hand, is a purely mental issue: there are no physiological effects and no withdrawal sickness. ANYTHING can become a compulsive behavior if your brain is wired up that way. The object of the compulsion has no causative effect. A person prone to compulsive behavior is going to latch onto anything they find pleasurable -- regardless of whether it is sex, food, shopping, exercise, gambling, religion -- and pursue that one thing to the exclusion of everything else in life.

12 step programs basically don't cure the underlying compulsive tendencies, they just redirect a self-destructive compulsion to something else that is more socially acceptable and less harmful.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[theaveng]

Filtering software.

Got any recommendations for good Open source (read: free) filtering software that parents can install on their kids PCs or laptops?

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Cowmonaut]

You put the computer in a public room of the house, not in their bedroom. That will stop most instances of the problem.

You can also follow the easy step by step directions available from Microsoft to setup user accounts so your kids are limited in what they view.

Better yet you can look into content filtering (just like you looked into what to feed your toddler/infant) and do something simple like OpenDNS or Content Watch or Net Nanny and not have to worry about it 99% of the time.

In short: Be A Parent. Get Involved. Do what you did when you first had your kid and were freaking out that you didn't know anything about raising a kid. Your job isn't done until they are moved out, and even then your kids need you (even if they never talk to you and generally don't visit on the holidays).

There is a very real problem of people not being responsible anymore. Just two generations ago this kind of apathy would of been outrageous. Now its the status quo.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[the_one(2)]

I wonder how long it would take for a determined kid to glean the password=) (I'm assuming the parents won't be anal regarding computer security)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[spiffydudex]

It's your job to be a parent to your children, not the government's.

I would like to point out that there are several good third party filters. That allow customization based on category and individual site allowances.
One of which I found useful in my own house is called Bsafe by http://www.bsafehome.com/

Re:Adult entertainment?

[blueskies]

How do you monitor what they do offline? It's the same thing. Computer setup by the kitchen....how hard is it to see nude pictures, while you are cooking and glancing over??

You argue from ignorance/lack of imagination. If *I* can't think of an easy solution, there is no solution or it should be everyone else's problem, but not MINE.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[sjames]

My point is, so long as the parents are the ones controlling what the kids see rather than the entire world, it hardly matters.

Meanwhile, if YOU want to answer 4 year old questions like "She's not a horse, why is he trying to ride her like one?", "why is that lady spanking that man?", and, in particular, "Why did we have to stand in the corner? we were just playing mommy and daddy like those people on TV!" be my guest! :-)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Tauvix]

The problem is that by and large there's a difference between teaching reproduction, and the wide variety of sex enjoyed, and available on the Internet.

Do you really want to expose a person who is still in the "girls are icky" phase to an S&M site involving tying up and whipping someone, or how about the highly illegal sites involving bestiality? In particular without a parent there to explain that while there may not (depending on your personal world views) be anything wrong with someone enjoying a little pain with their pleasure, it's not something that everyone is into?

Do you really want more people to have the idea that it's okay to do harm to others, but only if you really love them? Because, tell me, have you ever seen, read, or heard an "accepted" explanation about reproduction that didn't start out "When two people really love each other and want to have a baby..."

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for teaching someone about the physical side of love when they express an interest in the topic. I also believe that they should be taught of three possible combination of sex as well - M/F, M/M, and F/F - but I grew up in a fairly progressive household. Many are going to feel differently, and I'm okay with that.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that are addicted to porn.

Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that tried to use "addiction" as a defense.

There, fixed that for you...

Re:Adult entertainment?

[silentsteel]

While I understand your statement completely. I would like to remind you that not everyone in their 20s fell victim to that thought process. Again, when one is raised to be accountable by their parents, they will typically hold their children accountable. I have a 5 year old who has demonstrated enough proficiency on a computer to navigate to games and such. We have an older pc that I have set up for her running ubuntu that does not have an active network connection. When she needs something on it that requires network access I will install it myself, or she is sitting right next to me, if it happens to be an online game. As she gets older and matures, these restrictions will be lifted based on maturity level and discussion. I have no doubt that she will try to circumvent them in the mean time. As I happen to be a computer geek, hopefully I am ahead of the power curve on preventative measures. Though, at the same time, attempting to bypass network restrictions will be teaching her at the same time.

Oh well, the joys of being a parent.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[mcgrew]

I would rather keep kids away from online porn.

I would rather parents keep their kids away from online porn. My government should not have a say in what you choose to let your kids access.

BTW, you should keep your kids away from my journals, they're not fit for kids. Actually they're not even fit for adults.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[betterunixthanunix]

This is by far the most rational post I have seen on this topic. Yes, place the computer in the living room, and spend time with them in that room. Even if you are not doing the same thing as them, just being in the same room has benefits. There is some evidence (still being studied) that spending time in a different room than your kids is harmful to their development and increases the likelihood of them engaging in risky behavior (unprotected sex, for example).

Re:Adult entertainment?

[powerlord]

I wonder how long it would take for a determined kid to glean the password=) (I'm assuming the parents won't be anal regarding computer security)

Well ... if they are going THAT far, at least they are ahead of lots of other people, and perhaps that will at least teach them (both the parent and the child) about proper password security. :)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[nightfire-unique]

It's not about protection. It's about control. It's about inciting self-hate and body image problems. It's about inciting misery, and sexual frustration later in life.

Why?

Because people with sexual psychosis are more likely to seek pleasure somewhere else. Some percentage of these pleasure seekers will investigate church/religion.

Religious laws exist to create customers for the Church.

To suggest that blatant anti-sex laws are not religious in nature is idiotic. To suggest sexually active teenagers should not be "exposed" to pornography is idiotic.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[jonaskoelker]

Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that are addicted to porn.

The implied implication arrow (the existence of which is debatable but let's not go there) points in the wrong direction.

Look up the percentage of convicted rapists that were breastfed as children. Say it's 90 percent. Is breastfeeding dangerous?

The rate of people in group A that are also in group B says something about the people in group A. It does not (a priori) say anything about the people in group B.

You want to look at how many of the porn consumers are rapists, not how many of the rapists are porn consumers.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[jonaskoelker]

Correlation does not imply causation.

As I have pointed out (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1099757&cid=26552417), the problem isn't that your parent wants to infer causation from correlation. It's that the causation your parent wants to infer points in the wrong direction.

"So what if many rapists look at porn. Only 0.000001% of porn-viewers become rapists."

And what the parent has done isn't a correlation. It's a (measured/observed) conditional probability.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[vux984]

Pendant point, but sex is instinctual. If a girl and a boy were left on an island and they learned to survive but were not taught anything about sex they will eventually "figure out" how to have sex so to speak if they were attracted to each other; clumsily I might add.

I'm really not sure about that; if fact I'm downright skeptical.

I'm inclined to believe they very well might not ever figure it out. They might figure it out watching animals go through their mating/reproductive cycle, but even that counts as being taught; not instinct.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[EvanED]

There are 3 possibilities here:

There's actually a 4th possibility, and I would submit it seems more accurate than your #2. It is:
  d) A third factor (maybe genetics, to make something up) causes both the raping and the porn addiction

After all, it's probably not like the rapist becomes addicted after raping someone, which is what your (b) would imply.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Fluffeh]

How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.

You are kidding right? Let me start with a simple car anaolgy and then move to a clincher.

You have a nice clean car. Your kid asks to borrow it, saying he needs to drive three streets away to a friends house and stay there for a few hours and then drive back. You agree and in a few hours your kid returns the car. You notice that the car is now caked with mud around the wheel arches.

Now, you didn't have to watch your kids entire exact trip, didn't have to watch the exact turns they made, yet it would be pretty fair to say that they didn't go where they said they would go.

You don't need to monitor every single thing your kids do online, and you don't need to keep track of every single person they associate with. Get a general idea of what's going on with your child, see who they generally interact with. See their influences, their ambitions, find who they look up to. I would make a safe bet and say that if you really knew these things, you would be able to predict what they will be looking for - online and when they socialize.

Seriously, give them a level of freedom and trust. Let them be responsible for their own actions and choices. Chances are you will end up with kids that are much more adept at handling life that way - not to mention at the end of it you will have a much better relationship with them.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Zerth]

Seeing as most children figure out how to masturbate on their own, I imagine that, unless they hated each other or were very self-conscious, it wouldn't take them long to go from "we both like fondling our own bits that are located in the same general region" to "Insert tab A into slot B".

Of course, they might just get stuck at mutual fondling, or possible skip over to 69ing instead.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[gsgriffin]

What you are referring to is a well known adage that "correlation does not mean causation." That is correct, BUT the correlation is absurdly high...almost 100%. Does it mean that if you are addicted to porn you will become a rapist. No! But, if you are not addicted to porn, there is an extremely low change you will become a rapist.

Everyone thinks they are immune and nothing applies to them...until they are convicted of a crime.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. It means that if you are a rapist, there is an extremely high chance you will become addicted to porn. Give me numbers showing that almost all of them became addicted to porn before becoming rapists and I'll consider what you say.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[ElectricTurtle]

I'm going to invalidate all my moderations on this topic because I have to address some issues in here.

My parents were the sort who thought that children should be insulated from any kind of sexual awareness. Not to be seen, not be spoken of, not to be thought about. Now to a kid with any kind of backbone what that translates to is 'HOLY FUCK I REALLY HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT THIS SHIT!'

Consequently, when I stumbled upon porn as was inevitable, I obsessed about it. I obsessed about sexuality and even read sexual self help books in the library when I was eleven. I knew more about sexuality before puberty than was probably healthy, and the catalyst for all of it was people telling me 'you can/should not know that.'

If my parents had approached sexuality as some normal, boring (which it is for most people if they really look at it objectively), and trivial (pregnancy aside) activity between consenting adults instead of some hidden, fascinating, powerful mystical right of some kind that must be kept secret at all costs I probably would not have become hyperaware at such a young age. I probably would have been mentally healthier.

What's worse is that while my problem was overexposure, that's because I was headstrong and my response to forbidden knowledge is 'fuck you,' but other kids get conditioned to the idea of forbidden knowledge or bad knowledge and turn it into a learning problem. Their curiosity is diminished and their ability to learn is crippled because they become afraid to ask questions that they think will get them 'in trouble' and eventually they don't even think about thinking to ask questions. It's a type of conditioning, and then when they become adults and are finally released from the mental prison imposed on them by their parents and society at large, the conditioning stays with them. They've effectively internalized that prison, and very few ever really wake up and ask why it was so important for them to be handled the way that they were as children.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[theaveng]

>>>I would like to remind you that not everyone in their 20s fell victim to that thought process.

I know. If you re-read my post, you'll see I was only talking about the students who earned low grades. Our government has done a brilliant job of teaching these students that "just showing up" is enough to earna diploma, and they do the same with their child-rearing. They might be there, but they're not putting in any effort.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[theaveng]

>>>Do you really want to expose a person who is still in the "girls are icky" phase to an S&M site involving tying up and whipping someone, or how about the highly illegal sites involving bestiality?

(1) Let's be honest. These sites are hard-to-find. It's not something you just stumble upon.

(2) Someone in the "girls are icky" stage will probably handle it better than the "girls make me hard" stage. The former will just think it's funny, whereas the latter might feel embarrassed & try to avoid the topic. I find children easier to communicate with than self-conscious teenagers.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[ElectricTurtle]

Do you really want to expose a person who is still in the "girls are icky" phase to an S&M site involving tying up and whipping someone

I for one never had that phase, maybe because I'm a bisexual male? That would be an interesting study. Anyway, I don't see the correlation. Are you afraid that the S&M will somehow artificially reinforce the immature irrational aversion to females?

or how about the highly illegal sites involving bestiality?

That illegal status varies very highly from state to state and nation to nation. You claim toward the end of your post to have been brought up progressive, but your approach implies more similitude with the type who thinks that the world is homogeneous to where you are right now.

In particular without a parent there to explain that while there may not (depending on your personal world views) be anything wrong with someone enjoying a little pain with their pleasure, it's not something that everyone is into?

It's funny that you're advocating teaching the very thing at the same time that you're attempting to advocate not teaching.

Do you really want more people to have the idea that it's okay to do harm to others, but only if you really love them?

It's important for people to stop confusing love and sex. It's moralistic baggage from the era of 'no sex before marriage' that people are still trying to integrate into their otherwise sexually emancipated lives. However that's a much larger topic, the real issue here is simple consent. If person A says to person B 'I like it rough, and I want you to do X to me' then it's pretty clear. Love need not enter the equation at all.

Because, tell me, have you ever seen, read, or heard an "accepted" explanation about reproduction that didn't start out "When two people really love each other and want to have a baby..."

Just shows that the accepted process is just another artifact of the 'no sex before marriage' era. People need to find new modes of addressing the situation to kids instead of unrealistic anachronisms which have led to insanely high divorce rates.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[ElectricTurtle]

I swear one of these days I'm going to go on a crusade to show kids how an OS-complete bootable live CD can free them from all the censorship outside of hosts blocked by the network.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[ElectricTurtle]

Exactly. You're not going to make productive human beings out of your children by locking them up, and a virtual prison is no different. You have to teach them about the world and how to process and interpret it. Better that they learn about 'bad' things through the lens of their parents than from whatever immature/incomplete/irresponsible opinion their peers have, or worse, not learn at all and end up a gullible, naive putz that anybody can take advantage of.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[vux984]

Seeing as most children figure out how to masturbate on their own, I imagine that, unless they hated each other or were very self-conscious, it wouldn't take them long to go from "we both like fondling our own bits that are located in the same general region" to "Insert tab A into slot B"

Insert tab A into slot B isn't that simple. Its probably not where her masturbation is centered, after all, that's usually the clitoris, so why would it be the focus of their attention.

Plus she'll be dealing with a menstrual cycle as well, with unexplained bouts of bleeding and cramping. Is it really going to instinctively occur to her that putting his penis in there is a fabulous idea?

Plus its a pair of virgins. Odds are that, even if they decide to try it, that it will be unlikely to lead to her orgasm, and far more likely will be associated with some pain and discomfort, even blood if her hymen is intact. And soreness afterward.

Overall, its not automatically going to be deemed a success, it might not even rate as high as their anal experiments depending on how -that- goes.

I suspect that even if they 'tried it' they'd be just as likely to write if off as repeat it.

Of course, they might just get stuck at mutual fondling,

Yeah, I think they'd get that far for sure, and might settle there.

In any case I just don't see intercourse as an obvious instinctive natural progression.

or possible skip over to 69ing instead.

Possibly. Assuming they didn't conclude that the bodies sewage system was an unhealthy place to put their mouths, especially if their knowledge of hygiene and bacteria was as thorough as their knowledge of reproduction.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[phoenix.bam!]

So monitor your children's computer usage.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I don't really see why kids need to be filtered. We tell them about the disgusting habit of taking a ____, or how to properly clean their ____, so surely we can share with them reproduction.

Most porn online has little to do with 'reproduction' in an educational or clinical sense

We need to teach them eventually, and now is as good a time as any.

Of course! Every seven year old needs to be taught the finer points of a gangbang, or 2G1C.
Not defending the COPA in any way...it is wrong and dumb. It places the onus on society as a whole to 'prove' they are not children. And, by nature, you cannot do that in the online world.
But children are not merely 'short adults'.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Well, there's only one way to find out!

Re:Adult entertainment?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

If you don't breathe, there is a near-zero (I suppose you could do it under water and then never come back up) chance of you becoming a rapsist. Pornography and rape both correlate highly with sex drive, but obviously that doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with having a high sex drive.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, do your research before making an assumption about the effects of porn on anyone (kids or adults) and then stating it as a fact for everyone to read.

  There are effects and you can find them in lots of research on the net if you took the time to look. Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that are addicted to porn. You might be surprised what you find among a lot of social issues we deal with in America and its relationship to porn.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the addiction to porn is a sideeffect of their need which drove them to rape someone? In other words, all rapists maybe porn addicts but not all porn addicts maybe rapists...

Re:Adult entertainment?

[JohnFluxx]

"It's an adult thing - some adults like to do that".

Not really much different to trying to answer why it's on the news that people are trying to kill each other in horrible ways. Or are you going to block the TV news too?

Re:Adult entertainment?

[powerlord]

terrific.

At the point that becomes useful for them, and is adopted in large numbers is the point that the "precursor" to the "year of linux on the desktop" happens, since the only OS that can be set up as a LiveCD is either Linux or BSD, and I believe linux is further along in that regard.

(Gack, too late and too many run on sentences)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[ElectricTurtle]

I'll bet I could make FreeDOS work if I really tried. Not that it would be useful.

I prefer DSL on business card CDs.

Re:Adult entertainment?

[powerlord]

Business Card boot disks are great ... unless the machine you're looking at only has a slot-loading drive.

Nothing like having to burn a 50MB distribution onto a 650MB disk to make one sit there and wonder why they don't just switch to a bigger LiveCD. :)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad parents aren't omnipotent. They can monitor only half of the time, that's why they harp on the government to make these laws. You know, when things go out of your hand, let the government take care, right? (hint: government bailouts of corporates...)

Re:Adult entertainment?

[geminidomino]

(1) Let's be honest. These sites are hard-to-find. It's not something you just stumble upon.

Funny you should choose that term. Turn on "adult mode" or whatever they call it, and the BDSM images become surprisingly easy to find.

Not that I find this a problem...

Re:Adult entertainment?

[Volante3192]

But it's still illegal for them to view adult material, even though they may already be practicing (or even making their own) so the filter must remain in place.

Humans under 18 or 21, depending what the specific taboo is, are still considered children.

too many negatives

[olddotter]

How many times did you have to read this summary before you understood the current state of the law?

Re:too many negatives

[dragonsomnolent]

At least 8, I agree poorly worded summary.

Re:too many negatives

[fred fleenblat]

On top of that, it's opposite day!

Re:too many negatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Once because I am not a moran.

Re:too many negatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Once because I am not a moran.

but you may be a moron.

Re:too many negatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Once because I am not a moran.

Quit you're lying we know it's you Erin "Joanie from Happy Days" Moran.

Re:too many negatives

[Diamon]

I didn't have to not read it 3 times to not know what it didn't mean.

Re:too many negatives

[DerekLyons]

How many times did you have to read this summary before you understood the current state of the law?

Once.

Re:too many negatives

[jonaskoelker]

Once, but I read it after reading your post.

I found it perfectly clear, although I read it slowly enough to digest all the negations properly, probably influenced by your post.

(fwiw)

Re:too many negatives

[Anonymous Coward]

It was written by Marvin the paranoid android.

"That young girl," he added unexpectedly, "is one of the least benightedly unintelligent life forms it has been my profound lack of pleasure not to be able to avoid meeting."

Protect kids from "harmful material"

[internerdj]

I'll believe the government can do that when they can prove they can keep:
1) My social security number
2) My finacial information
3) Any other personal identifiable information
safe (well you know what) just in their own systems much less the internet as a whole. If it isn't technically feasible to protect me from people that are actively looking to ruin my entire life, then they don't have a shot at keeping my kids "safe" from whatever might possibly someday have a potentially negative effect on them in some way.

Re:Protect kids from "harmful material"

[AmberBlackCat]

The children would be in more danger if you don't let them have the pornography. Then they'll have to use their cellphones to make their own, and they'll all be listed as sexual predators...

dear mr. rudd...

[JackSpratts]

take that aussies!

Excuse me, but we're forgetting something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the verbal fellating of our Dear Leader, Lord Barry Soetoro the Merciful, anywhere in the article text, the summary, or the comments? I'm reporting all of you immediately to the newly-formed Ministry of Verbal Fellatio of Our Dear Leader.

Think Of The Children!

[Kenyai]

I'm glad this happened.

Allow me to be blatantly honest. I think kids should have the right to explore their sexuality in a safe manner online. I know I did.

Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[caffeinemessiah]

You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.

This is the funniest thing I think I've ever read on Slashdot. You, sir, seem to live in some reality where a controversial but possibly reasonable argument about pornography and children will be taken seriously. Anyway, let's assume that such a proposal does make it to the general public. In the "real" world, "tame erotic websites" will have the same connotation as marijuana being a "gateway drug": (a) that it's addictive and harmful (b) it leads to "harder" stuff (in both weed and porn contexts) and (c) it will ruin the children, even though adults enjoy it responsibly everyday.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Urza9814]

Yup, I did the same thing. But I did it mostly by P2P rather than websites. I'd like to see them try to block that...

Re:Think Of The Children!

[j79zlr]

I'm glad this happened.

Allow me to be blatantly honest. I think kids should have the right to explore their sexuality in a safe manner online. I know I did.

Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.

MTV?

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'll bite... but only as AC.

I've been thinking a lot about this and I believe it's ok to separate sexualizing children by force (sex abuse, inappropriate hazing, adult on child sex) from children sexualizing themselves out of curiosity (porn, masturbation, child on child sex). The two scenarios have completely different outcomes.

I've seen many examples in my adult friendships where children who did not get to regulate their own sexual stimuli, grow up to be adults who feel out of control with regards to their sexuality.

It might follow that children who get to regulate their own access to sexual stimuli, grow up to understand that this aspect of their personality and behavior is under their own control.

I don't think that child targeted porn is a good idea (mainly for the reason that a child's mind is no match for targeted marketing). Nevertheless, the idea that children have access to porn, under the condition that they choose on their own to seek it out, doesn't offend me.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, it's there. Google Images. Type in a search of your choice:
blondes
miley
bikini

Incidentally, the button just below this input text field says "Quote Parent". In this particular forum, that's probably a really good idea.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Jason Levine]

You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.

Something like PG Porn? http://www.spike.com/video/pg-porn-pg-porn/3041858

Re:Think Of The Children!

[PitaBred]

It's true! I started with ogling the bikini pics, and now I can't get hard short of autoerotic asphyxiation and an hour's worth of gunpoint rape porn.

I probably need a sarcasm tag in there somewhere before the moral police come to take me away...

Re:Think Of The Children!

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

When I was in Germany I saw a magazines (Bravo?) equivalent to something like Teen People in the US that had nude teenagers with stats like age/height/etc with one male and one female per issue in with information on Fools Garden or whatever other German pop was popular at the time. I think the intent was to provide a basis for comparison for the body changes teens go through. In the US this would likely be considered child pornography and land you in jail.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[AmberBlackCat]

So stop calling it "tame erotic websites" and start calling it MTV.com.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[BennyBigHair]

it's called maxim or blender or sports illustrated swim suit edition or victoria's secret or frederick's of hollywood...

Re:Think Of The Children!

[mcgrew]

In the "real" world, "tame erotic websites" will have the same connotation as marijuana being a "gateway drug": (a) that it's addictive and harmful (b) it leads to "harder" stuff (in both weed and porn contexts) and (c) it will ruin the children, even though adults enjoy it responsibly everyday.

A: Marijuana is not addictive, but could be harmful to some (e.g., children and some mental patients).

B: marijuana doesn't lead to "harder" drugs (harder, deadly drugs like alcohol and tobacco?), but the laws against it certainly do. The same people who sell pot sell other drugs, and when Reagan waged his war in marijuana, the pot supply dried up and there was a flood of cocaine.

"Got any pot, man?"

"No, it's dry. Want some coke?"

I know guys who loved their marijuana until their employer started drug testing. Lied to about pot (which stays in your system for a month) they figured they were lied to about crack (which stays from three days to a week) as well, and subsitutued crack for pot, since they were less likely to get caught.

None of them are now employed by anybody, cocaine addiction is no joke.

C: this is the absolutely retardedest thing about drug prohibition. You want to keep it from the kids? Kids ain't narcs and dealers know it. It's easier for a kid to buy dope than an adult. Hell, you can buy pot in high schoold, but you can't buy beer there.

You would have to be on some strong drugs to think that outlawing marijuana could possibly have any positive effect on society.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[redcaboodle]

They even have a page where teens ask question regarding sex and their bodies and are answered by a doctor. It's called Ask Dr. Sommer and has been around since at least the early 80s.

I can't recall anyone making a fuss about that. Most German teen mags have a similar page.

And yes, the name is Bravo. We grew up with it and then grew out of it. It's considered a normal state of mental development, the Bravo-age.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[db32]

We already have those sites. Have you not watched MTV lately? Or pretty much any of those "tween" shows or magazines.

Aside from that, why the hell should we make it easy for the little brats? Everyone else had to sneak around when they were kids for this stuff, no sense in changing that now!

Re:Think Of The Children!

[ElectricTurtle]

I know it's kind of offtopic, but parent is fucking informative.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[azenpunk]

kids don't have sexuality. you cannot separate sex from the hormonal changes that are related to it. sex cannot be understood until you have been in the mindset that can only be achieved through the influence of those hormones.

i don't think of post puberty people so much as 'kids' as woefully under-prepared proto-adults, however many people do still think of these folks as 'kids' which is fine in my book.

where your argument fails this situation is that porn is by defenition fantasy, it's purposely unrealistic. in porn sex happens in situations where it simply won't in real life, and the men get to treat women in ways they don't get to in real life (usually), and the women always like the treatment they get in porn while in real life they will appreciate such treatment much less often.

porn is fine once you've got some bearings but it's a horrible way to be introduced to sexuality of any sort for the very first time.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[YrWrstNtmr]

Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.

Same filtering, just at a different level.
Oh, and that idea is batshit crazy.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. I directly attribute several of my most serious regrets in life to being under-prepared for the real world experience of sexuality by my parents and society in general. I fully expect to carry some of the mental scars for the rest of my life.

I just consider myself lucky as all hell that I didn't get someone pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease.

Personally, I believe that if I'd been given any exposure to "normal" sexuality beyond what I found out through pornography, I'd probably not have made the same set of mistakes.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except for the psychosis evident in a lot of long term marijuana users.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

A: Marijuana is not addictive, but could be harmful to some (e.g., children and some mental patients).

This is simply false. I support the legalisation of marijuana as much as the next man, but our case is never going to progress as long as its most vocal advocates continue to insist that it is totally or almost totally harmless and that it is non addictive.

It's not physically addictive like opiates, and it's much less psychologically addictive than something like cocaine; but it is addictive, and of comparable addictiveness to alcohol.

It's also harmful to physical and mental health, and there does not need to be a pre-existing condition for this to be true.

Marijuana shouldn't be legal because it's harmless, it should be legal because we have the right to harm ourselves if we want to.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[justleavealonemmmkay]

Allow me to be blatantly honest. I think kids should have the right to explore their sexuality in a safe manner online. I know I did.

Times haven't changed so much

Re:Think Of The Children!

[daveime]

The only thing making marijuana legal will do is cause the price to increase by 1000% once the grubby politicians start taxing it like they do with alcohol and cigarettes.

I've never understood the reasoning behind it being illegal in the first place, as it's blatantly obvious that both cigarettes and alcohol have worse immediate / long term side effects.

But I'm happy with the status quo, as in most civilised countries, decriminalisation seems to work far better i.e. plod won't nick you for a 1/16th or an 1/8th, but will nick you if you are carrying a couple of blocks around with you.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[geminidomino]

Back when I was a kid, even the most puritanical mom (i.e. mine) got the sears catalog with the young miss section.

On top of everything else, I learned to be mighty resourceful.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[geminidomino]

Too many kids today cry for Mommy and Daddy. Daddy is at the bar with his new girlfriend, Mommy no longer satisfies him. Mommy is at banana republic with her girlfriends expressing her taste for materialism. Todays families are very broken. Children no longer look up to their parents but to movie stars, teachers, and the cool kid at school.

Dude, you sound like a fucking Police song, except Police songs don't generally suck as hard... you forgot the thing crawling out of the lake.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[mcgrew]

Do we keep having to repeat about correlation and causation? Psychotics are far more likely to ignore laws than sane people are. As the oldsters before even my time used to say, it's "putting the cart before the horse".

Re:Think Of The Children!

[mcgrew]

It's not physically addictive like opiates

For there to be addiction there must be physical withdrawal symptoms. Opium, niccotine, caffeine, cocaine, alcohol all have physical withdrawal symptoms. Marijuana does not.

There is no such thing as a "sex addict" or a "gambling addict". You cannot become addicted to a behavior. These terms are damned lies. You can be habuated to sex, gambling, or pot, but not addicted.

The term is "habituating", and habituation can be and often is more powerful thatn the addiction, as I found out in 1999 when I gave up cigarettes.

and of comparable addictiveness to alcohol

You should stop listening to whoever is feeding you this bullshit. I've been smoking pot since 1971, but only when I can afford it and it is available. I have never had any trouble giving it up when I wished to or needed to. I've known some who started smoking it in their teen years, and they did indeed have problems with it, even after they reached adulthood. Kids shouldn't smoke, period.

I'd have a harder time giving up orange juice than pot. No way could I give up coffee, which is both addictive and habituating - far more habituating than pot.

As to alcohol, withdrawal from alcohol can be lethal. There is no withdrawal from marijuana, as it is simply habituating and not addictive.

It's also harmful to physical and mental health

A study of geezers was done recently (I wish I could find the citation, I saw it in New Scientest) that looked at medical records of nonsmokers, potheads, buttheads, and pot smoking buttheads.

Of the four groups, the potsmokers had the lowest incidence of cancer, followed closely by nonsmokers (the difference was slight but statistically signifigant).

Next were potsmoking cigarette smokers.

The highest incidence of cancer was in those who only smoked tobacco.

There is no known lethal dose of cannibis. Nobody has ever died ingesting marijuana.

It is also not harmful to to the mental health of adults, although I wouldn't be so sure to say that about teenagers whose brains haven't fully developed. You won't be able to cite any real study (any study financed by the Partnership for a Drug Free America cannot be taken seriously) that shows that cannibis is harmful to any group, save youngsters.

Marijuana shouldn't be legal because it's harmless, it should be legal because we have the right to harm ourselves if we want to.

I agree. Crack cocaine (most definitely NOT harmless) should be legalized. I suspect that if coke were legal, less would be used, because everybody would see how badly it fucks a user's life up.

Re:Think Of The Children!

[mcgrew]

The only thing making marijuana legal will do is cause the price to increase by 1000% once the grubby politicians start taxing it like they do with alcohol and cigarettes.

Tobacco is hard to grow, marijuana is about as easy to grow as dandelions. There is roughly an ounce of tobacco in that five dollar pack of cigarettes, of which half the price is tax. Do the math!

Plus, you can easily grow your own pot, bypassing the tax man completely.

When reefer is legal its price will plummet drastically. That pound of pot will now be roughly comparable in price to a pound of tobacco - five or ten bucks. That's after tax.

I've never understood the reasoning behind it being illegal in the first place

In the 1940s (IIRC) Harry Anslinger, the head of the US Narcotics Bureau, wanted more money for his agency to combat haroin. But Congress was about tapped out on the heroin money, so Anslinger proceeded to manufacture another "drug menace". Marijuana was perfect, since only blacks, hispanics, and musicians (three groups of people that didn't matter to anyone in government) were the only users.

Since then, you only have to ask yourself - what group benefits from the illegality of drugs? Dope dealers and manufacturers, whose industry would crash instantly if their wares were legalized. Want to find the heads of teh Columbian cartels? Look at who's lobbying Congress for harsher drug laws, and the trail will lead you to the incredibly rich and ruthless men who produce, transport, and sell illegal drugs.

the system works

[circletimessquare]

it is very easy, vey lazy, and very dumb to ape the usual cynical comments about our government (speaking as an american). but one of the bedrock principles of our government is checks and balances: if one branch gets out of line, another branch puts it back in its place. here, the legislative branch passed a law which abrogates freedom of expression. the judicial branch comes in, and squashes it. so celebrate, goddamn it, the system works

it is not useful for anyone to find that the system failed when it passed this law in the first place. people are weak, they make dumb mistakes. obviously, this law was an idiotic mistake. and it won't be the last idiotic law that is passed. but laws bet blocked, and overturned. please make note of that. there is a filter in place

of course, the diehards will find SOME way to complain about something. their first stop, of course, will be to list the familiar abuses of the bush administration... the bush administration that is now dead. the usual talking points and familiar executive branch excesses are history. move on, please find something new to whine and bitch and moan about

the biggest check of all, the biggest filter of all, the american people, just closed the chapter on that administration. of course i don't expect some of you to actually cheer when something good happens. for some of you, you seem congenitally incapable of doing that

whining and bitching and moaning. if that's all you can do, you've failed, not your government

so celebrate

Re:the system works

[HasselhoffThePaladin]

That's right. It's a celebration, bitches.

/rickjames

Re:the system works

[sanosuke001]

In my opinion, taking 11 years is failing. Until the Judicial Branch is forced to look over every piece of legislation, they aren't doing their jobs. They should have to sign off on everything just as the President does.

They have a 2/3's majority to overturn a veto, have a 3/4 or 4/5's for a Judicial Appeal or something. (The Judiciary would then have to go through a full-blown case where before they just had to agree simple majority to pass it)

Picking and choosing based on items brought to them is negligent at best.

Re:the system works

[frank_adrian314159]

the usual talking points and familiar executive branch excesses are history.

Some of those excesses were actually war crimes and some of us are not going to stop talking about them until (at least) investigations are held. Unless you think (a) that waterboarding is not torture (and if so, tell me what's changed since WWII to convince you otherwise) or (b) that the Executive Branch can order people to torture with impunity.

Yes, I know, you're probably one of those centrists who want to live in the "fluffy bunny let's all get along" world of post-partisan politics (or perhaps an authoritarian conservative who wants to brush all of this stuff under the carpet). But if it means letting war criminals off the hook, I'm not buying it. The best thing America has is the ability of its citizens to make a stink about truly stinky stuff - even stinky stuff that is in the past to make sure it doesn't happen again. So don't you ever tell us not to bitch and moan about the truly heinous. I will support our President when he does good things, and I will complain when he does bad things (or not enough good things).

Re:the system works

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the system does work.

No, that does not mean there aren't still things that can and should be complained about, including things coming from the new administration.

No, complaining about those things does not imply any of the failings that you have chosen to project onto the complainers.

Yes, you are projecting those failures because you know that they are really your own.

No, the false confidence you're now putting into your sad attempt to dismiss these inescapable facts isn't fooling anyone, not even yourself.

Re:the system works

[blueg3]

You seem to misunderstand how the Judicial branch works. They don't have the right to look over every piece of legislation as it's made and decide if it's constitutional. This can only occur when someone's rights are infringed upon.

However, it didn't take eleven years. The law was made but did not take effect in 1998. There was an injunction against it, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. By 2004, that injunction had been appealed enough that it reached the Supreme Court, who upheld the injunction. (If you'll recall from the Metro hacker case, injunctions are generally active while they're under appeal.)

The end result is, while there has been some level of judicial activity around the law up until this point (10+ years since the law was passed), the law has never actually been in effect.

By that measure, it took zero years.

Re:the system works

[pi_rules]

Until the Judicial Branch is forced to look over every piece of legislation, they aren't doing their jobs.

Uh, no way.

The role of the court isn't just to strike down unconstitutional laws, they also help define the already written ones through case law. Believe it or not laws tend to be written fairly poorly. Two people can read the same law and interpret it differently, especially lawyers. It's the courts job to help refine the meaning of our laws over time, spanning hundreds of years. It's a constantly changing system.

Further, they simply don't have the time. It takes them months to decide a case, they certainly don't have the time to put that kind of effort into every single thing Congress passes. It's impossible.

It's not a perfect system, but damned if I can come up with a better one.

But you know who else is thinking of the children.

[GMonkeyLouie]

Gotta tell you, a lot of porn sites have chat nowadays, or at least the most fun ones do, and I don't want my kids being on those sites talking with a bunch of degenerates.

Softcore porn for kids is (I can't believe I'm saying this) probably not that bad of an idea, considering that almost everyone has gotten their chafed little hands on a Victoria's Secret catalog somewhere along the way, but the nature of internet porn is that every site attempts to link you deeper into dirtier and more proprietary material to get you to look at their ads and pay for their content. Slippery slope for all with sleds.

Now, chatrooms for kids to talk to each other? Fine. Maybe this would mean a large-scale endorsement of OLPC, for all the wrong reasons?

It's hard for parents to do this

[gsgriffin]

I, for one, would love some help in blocking stuff for my son. I put on controls and try my best to keep him from being dragged into that stuff at a young age, but it is disturbing how much comes through even the tools we have.

I would love it if the porn sites simply said that their money comes from adults and they have no business luring children into it (like smoking companies) and voluntarily made more protection for our kids to help make my parenting that much easier. I know this is wishful thinking, but at some point, freedom of speech is taking to a point of hurting our society and not helping.

We are not actually able to say anything we want whenever we want. Example, try going into a theater and yelling, "Fire!" over and over. You might go to jail and if someone is hurt, you'll be sued and rightly so. You abused your freedom of speech to hurt someone. There is no doubt that porn hurts people.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Skye16]

There... isn't?

That's funny. I completely doubt that porn harms anyone. I'd like to see enough evidence that proves your stance that porn harms anyone other than monastery's enrollment rate.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I want my right to yell "Fire!" in a theater.

All rights come with a resposibility attached, and my right to free speech comes with a resposibility as well.

Yes, if direct harm comes from my free speech, yes, I'm resposible for that, but that don't limit what I can say and what I can't, just makes me responsible of my actions.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[drsmithy]

I would love it if the porn sites simply said that their money comes from adults and they have no business luring children into it (like smoking companies) and voluntarily made more protection for our kids to help make my parenting that much easier. I know this is wishful thinking, but at some point, freedom of speech is taking to a point of hurting our society and not helping.

What is this 'luring' ?

I've been browsing the web for ~15 years now, and I've _never_ ended up at a porn site "accidentally". If your kids are hitting porn sites, it's because they're looking for them deliberately.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[MatthewCCNA]

I completely doubt that porn harms anyone

carpal tunnel?

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[meringuoid]

I've been browsing the web for ~15 years now, and I've _never_ ended up at a porn site "accidentally".

Really? Never at all?

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[flitty]

Yes. Any kid who gets there is looking for it. Or dumb enough to click some link in their email that they don't know where/who it came from. Then i'd argue that you'd be really failing as a parent to let your kid click anon links in their email... the real evil. The absolutely only way your kid would end up on a website they don't intend is by typing in an address in the address bar that they think will take them one place and they end up somewhere else. It's not like adult websites advertise on Cartoon Network's website or anything.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is no doubt that porn hurts people"

can you support that argument?

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[gsgriffin]

You haven't been browsing much. 5 years ago (my first embarrassment on the net with my daughter) we were looking up screensavers and desktop displays. I was trying to find one with a Disney movie she liked. We clicked on a site, saw some thumbnails of images that looked great, and then a pop-up came on the screen with a completely naked women on it. I'd call that a lure.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Fearan]

I gather you never visited whitehouse.com back in the late 90's or early 2000's?

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no doubt that porn hurts people.

[citation needed]

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Websites that contain cracks and serials for programs tend to have porn on them.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't fair. I remember going to www.zelda.com and it was a porn site at the time.

Gee, a kid that thinks that all keywords work as addresses could come across a similiar situation.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[XnavxeMiyyep]

As someone who has also been browsing the web for what I estimate is a similar length of time, I never accidentally clicked said links.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, mostly, but www.whitehouse.com is a pretty effective counter to your argument. At least it used to be. Two years or so it was changed from a porn site into what it is now.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Accidents can happen. Ever been to python.com (nsfw) instead of python.org?

Are YOU joking?

[Jane Q. Public]

If you think parents are horrible, try government. They don't know how to tie their own shoelaces without hiring a consulting firm for $1,000,000 to study the idea first. If you are looking to government to be a watchdog for your children, then, well, all I can say is that you are clueless.

Re:The (judicial) System

[Hatta]

If the courts worked, we wouldn't have decisions like Wickard v. Filburn, Hiibel v. 6th, Herring v. US, etc. It seems like every other month the SCOTUS is shitting on the constitution in one way or another.

Right On Brother

[tobiah]

Better to learn from other people's mistakes (or experiences). I'm pretty sure the Planned Ignorance crowd is motivated by a desire to propogate their genetic line at all costs, rather than any real concern for their immediate offsprings.

A very intelligent person

[Jane Q. Public]

a physics professor, in fact, who happens to be a friend of mine, puts it this way:

"They correlate marijuana use with other drugs, and say '70% of hard drug users started with marijuana.' But they are missing something: they ALL started on milk!"

Re:A very intelligent person

[blueg3]

Since I started watching the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street when I was 3, I've gained 160 pounds.

Re:A very intelligent person

[cgenman]

Funny, this immediately made me wonder what was wrong with those other 30%.

Re:the system works ???

[Jane Q. Public]

You point out one instance of the system working -- just barely -- and say that it is proof that the system works.

Sometimes.

I agree with the above posters, and will go further: (1) 11 years constitutes an effective failure. (2) The Executive branch has (almost quite literally) gotten away with murder during this past administration, with very little help coming from either the Legislative or Judicial. (3) In order for individuals to challenge the constitutionality of a law, they must show that (a) they were personally affected by the law, and (b) actual, rather than theoretical, harm. This is a disastrous flaw in the system, which has contributed to the excessive amount of time it has often taken to repeal unconstitutional laws. And finally (4) if you think all unconstitutional laws and regulations created by the Legislative and Executive were "mistakes", then you are very much mistaken.

Wow!

[Jane Q. Public]

I concur. Those are bad decisions.

COPA vs. COPPA

[riceboy50]

This is not to be confused with COPPA, which is also a 1998 law protecting children online that exists and is enforced.

Hooray precedent

[RepelHistory]

This is absolutely a free speech issue, and while the government has the power to regulate speech, this generally applies to the time, place and manner of the speech rather than its content.

The Supreme Court has long held that if the government wants to regulate speech based on its content, the regulation must serve a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to fit that interest, and be the least restrictive means possible. This test is referred to as "strict scrutiny." ( Source)

In this case, COPA is simply way out of line. While the status of protecting minors from the horrors of breasts as a compelling government interest is debatable (I would argue that it is none of the government's beeswax), COPA is definitely not the least restrictive means possible to protect the children. Responsible parents can and should control the content that their children access through the means available to them, and thus any government regulation beyond this is by definition not the least restrictive means possible. So any government regulation to this end is unconstitutional as long as free speech is involved and parents have at the very least the opportunity to parent responsibly.

The Definition of Insanity!

[bornagainpenguin]

>>Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient
>>just because problems are not solved instantly?

Because it's insane having to go through this every other year or so!

What else do you call it when the Legislative and Executive branches see their attempts to pass feel-good laws consistently rejected as unconstitutional by the Judicial branch, yet nevertheless continue to approve the same unconstitutional boondoggles? Oh and lets not forget the cost to both federal and state budgets needed to resolve a question already answered the **LAST** few times it came up?

If there seems to be any impatience on the part of your fellow Slashdotters, consider maybe it is due to our exasperation at seeing the idiots in government insist they can make 2+2=5 if they just keep working at it long enough....

--bornagainpenguin

Re:The Definition of Insanity!

[theaveng]

The sad part is that they are probably right. If they keep passing the same law, eventually they'll get a Supreme Court to let it slide. It might take 30 years but eventually it will slip through, and freedom will be curtailed.

The Congress and the President have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and yet they break that oath constantly. If only there were some kind of punishment for the Congress & President when a law they passed is declared unconstitutional. Like removal from office. Maybe it could be a three strike deal where any Congressman or President who has 3 laws under their belt which were declared unconstitutional, they are immediately ejected from office for violating their U.S. Constitutional oath.

It would turn the oath from a toothless, meaningless string of words into something that has real effect & real consequences.

Re:The Definition of Insanity!

[HTH NE1]

If only there were some kind of punishment for the Congress & President when a law they passed is declared unconstitutional.

The punishment is stated, open-ended, at the very end of the oath: "...so help me God."

Yeah, not much comfort there for the living.

Re:The Definition of Insanity!

[theaveng]

"So help me God" is NOT part of the oath.

Besides since we're discussing temporal laws, the punishment should be temporal too. Remove any Congressman from office if three of their laws are declared unconstitutional by the Judicial branch. ("Constitutional Oath - Three Strikes Gauaranteed")

Re:The Definition of Insanity!

[Elldallan]

Make it one strike, if you run for office you better damn well know how to operate that office, this is one of those things that are so important that society can't afford to give them a second or a third chance

Any member of the executive or the legislative branch who has one of their laws declared as unconsitutional should also suffer the full extent of any and all punishments detailed within that law

Oh, FFS - it's DEAD! (summary is wrong)

[R2.0]

Ok, isn't ANYONE going to point out that the summary is totally wrong? The *Supreme* Court declined to hear the government's appeal of the Philadelphia appellate court's decision. It's not still squirming, it is dead. Deceased. Gone to meet it's maker. It would be pushing up daisies if the editors from Slashdot even bothered to RTFA.

Is congress going to try again? Of course. But this particular law has reached the end of its non-life.

Question

[Sam36]

Why is it that back when I was a teenager and first got the internet (1998 era), that every single porn site that I tried to go to prompted me for a credit card number?

I spent my teen years trying my hardest to find porn but never could. And then I look at the net now. I am not sure what happened but I am not happy with it. So many men struggle with porn now a days. I guess one good thing is that since it is pretty much free men won't squander all their money on it. But still I am not happy.

I really wonder how I am going to handle this with my children. Sure I am a computer science guy, I run a linux firewall on my local net with squid guard installed. But blocking "adult content" pretty much disables the whole internet. Which sorta shows how big this problem is. I don't mind my complicated squidguard set up and it works good but I could never expect parents to be able to do this. Most parents know nothing. I can't recommend squidguard because of the complexity, but I can't recommend the standard windows blocker apps as they are crappy, monopolistic and it is just something else that you have to install on windows on top of all the adware malware virus stuff. Way too much money already. Heck these windows machines are getting harder and harder to maintian. Todays cars probably require less maintenance than todays windows machines. And this doesn't seem to be getting easier but harder!

If the governement wants to pull this then they better make the app that will filter the crap that a simple law would. And it better be a good app. And free.

Re:Question

[maharvey]

Nothing to add, but I agree. If I had mod points I'd use them here.

Re:Question

[Sam36]

Well that was sort of a rant but atleast we agree that something is wrong. I see the problems the law would make. But the disadvantages of not having it might be greater. Kinda like the yes on prop 8 / no on prop 8 debacle. Both sides can make good arguments but imo one of the sides is wrong lol

Re:Question

[YrWrstNtmr]

I really wonder how I am going to handle this with my children.

Have the PC in a common room, with the monitor facing the room. And, even after they are older, make a point of walking through the room once in a while.
You'd be surprised how effective that is. Not 100% (nothing is), but not bad. When the kid knows you may be standing right behind them at any time...it really puts a clamp on what they try to do. And the kid has to know by example...i.e. you doing it.

Re:Question

[Ash-Fox]

Have the PC in a common room, with the monitor facing the room.

And what would you do when end up catching them doing it?

When the kid knows you may be standing right behind them at any time...it really puts a clamp on what they try to do.

Kid will just do it at some time when you aren't around.

I just had a great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since these politicians seem to be so intent on saving children from harmful media and have a hard time proving that is has a direct correlation with the "bad" people in society, we should kill these politicians, use violent media as a scapegoat, and see if they'll let it fly! This way everyone wins!

Slippery slopes beware

[Solandri]

The law, which made it a crime for websites to allow children access to 'harmful' material, was declared a violation of the First Amendment because of existing elective filtering technologies and parental controls that are less restrictive to free speech than the 'ineffective' and 'overly broad' ban."

Does this mean that sometimes going part way down the slippery slope is actually the best protection against going further down the slippery slope? My head hurts...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Finally

[Arancaytar]

This will finally do away with that stupidity on phpBB fora where people are required to load an extra page just to lie* about being older than 13.

*Or tell the truth, but which nosy 12-year-old does that?

Re:Finally

[Ksevio]

Actually that falls under the "COPPA" Act (with two P's) so that's going to have to stay...and I'll still be getting those stupid forms sent to me saying that an account is allowed to be activated....

Re:Finally

[geminidomino]

Actually that falls under the "COPPA" Act (with two P's) so that's going to have to stay...and I'll still be getting those stupid forms sent to me saying that an account is allowed to be activated....

I considered that for Mangaschool, but having to set up a fax machine and keep records... Now I just refuse for under-13s. If they lie and keep their mouths shut, I made a good-faith effort. If they say something stupid about being 13, I ban them expiring on the 13th birthday (based on what is said/entered as birthdate)

Just can't deal with the paperwork.

Only if you stay in the nice part of the web...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've been browsing the web for ~15 years now, and I've _never_ ended up at a porn site "accidentally". If your kids are hitting porn sites, it's because they're looking for them deliberately.

Nah, you can wind up with lots of porn & popups while searching for pirated goods. Not all of the pirates out there are as nice as on the Pirate Bay.

If you don't believe me, turn off your ad blocker and search for some ROMs. Most of them have ads concerning anime porn (and likely other kinds as well).

Oh cry me a river.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times were we attacked after 9-11?

Re:Oh cry me a river.

[geminidomino]

How many times were we attacked after 9-11?

Want to buy my anti-elephant rock? I haven't seen an elephant in my living room since I got it.

Unconstitutional?

[jandersen]

Is it really unconstitutional? I don't know; but I do know that it is completely idiotic to try to criminalize something that people have no influence on. There is no practical way that a web-master could ensure that no child could reach "harmful content" via his web-site; or even that there would be no harmful content hosted on his web-site. Sometimes I suspect those in power imagine computers like some sort of magical device that could easily do anything, "if only somebody would get their act together". It would be nice if it was a requirement that you were qualified for the job before you could be elected for a public office; I mean, I'm all for democracy, but I would expect if you are bright enough to run for things like mayor, congress or president, then you are also bright enough to learn and understand a few basic facts about how things work in the real world.

If it was an easy thing to do, I would say that it was a very good idea to make sure that our children could not come into contact with things that were more dangerous than they would be able to handle well. But it isn't. The only people who stand a reasonable chance at protecting children are their parents - and possibly teachers - but even they can only do so much. Sad, but true.

Not entirely true

[anonymousJUGGERNAUT]

Gambling and porn addictions appear to involve the same dopamine-mediated reward pathways in the brain as, e.g., heroin addiction. Google "porn addiction," "sex addiction," or "gambling addiction" along with "dopamine" for many refs, do it in google scholar for scientific articles. There's even some indication of physical withdrawal symptoms.